In December 2021, the UK signed a free trade agreement with Australia³. Compassion is deeply concerned by the deal, as this ultimately tariff-free deal will allow cheap imports of beef and sheepmeat into the UK and seriously undermine UK animal welfare standards and Britain’s higher welfare pasture-based farmers.

Around 40% of the beef produced in Australia comes from cows fattened in feedlots, where the animals spend months in intensive conditions, fed largely on grain rather than grazing on pasture.

As with the USA, antibiotic use in Australian agriculture is also high. A recent report by the Alliance to Save our Antibiotics⁵ found that use per animal in poultry is over 16 times higher in Australia than in the UK, whilst for pigs, it is nearly three times higher.

In addition, several practices prohibited in the UK are permitted in Australia. These include mulesing (removing parts of the skin from live sheep), confining hens in barren cages, and keeping pregnant sows in stalls.

Despite these crucial differences in animal welfare standards between the two nations, the UK Government will not require beef or sheepmeat imports to meet domestic animal welfare standards in order for it to qualify for tariff or quota-free access to the UK market.

The UK Government has said that poultry, pork and egg exports will not be granted tariff-free access to the British market, due to a lack of comparative standards. However, in evidence given to the UK's House of Commons Efra Committee, the Agriculture Counsellor for the Australian High Commission stated that: “The issue with the poultry and pork sectors in Australia is that they are very domestically focused. There is no export interest in the UK or in almost any other market. They were excluded from the FTA only for that purpose.”4

Whichever the reason for those products being excluded from the FTA, exports of beef and sheepmeat products will be granted significant market access in spite of the frequently poor practices adopted by those Australian sectors.

Worryingly, under the terms of the Agreement, in the first year alone tens of thousands of tonnes of Australian beef and sheepmeat will be allowed into the UK, tariff-free. Then the quotas would grow, year-on-year, until tariffs are totally eliminated.^5,6

The UK Government’s Impact Assessment of the deal states that there will be “around” a £94 million negative impact to the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector and £225m hit to the semi-processed-foods sector as a result of this agreement. This suggests they expect large quantities of agricultural goods to come onto the UK market from Australia.⁸

The UK-Australian FTA looks set to break the UK Government's promises to protect animal welfare standards in trade deals. It will undermine higher welfare farming in the UK and encourage lower welfare practices in Australia – threatening the wellbeing of animals in both nations.

We are also concerned that concessions in the deal with Australia, may form a precedent for the US and other talks. Already, New Zealand renegotiated parts of its agreement, before it was signed (see below), to secure similar access to that which Australia negotiated for its agricultural export. It is vital that an Australian deal does not act as a Trojan horse, paving the way for the UK's higher standards to be further undermined in the potentially much larger US FTA.

You can find out more about these issues in our briefing on the UK-Australia FTA, and our submission to the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee.

Compassion is calling for the UK Government to develop a set of core standards that would need to be met in order for imports of certain products to be permitted.

SPEAK OUT: Please help protect animals by taking action against the UK-Australian trade deal.

The CPTPP is a free-trade bloc made up of 12 countries, based around the Pacific rim. The other eleven countries are – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), was approved in March 2023, with ratification occurring in December 2024.

The CPTPP agreement is of particular concern because of the large number of countries already part of the agreement. Collectively they cover the entire waterfront in terms of sectors with lower animal welfare standards. These are covered in more detail below.

The potential impact of the UK’s accession to the CPTPP on British food and farming standards, as a result of further increases in imports of goods produced to standards lower than those permitted in the UK, is significant. For example, both Mexico and Canada have interest in exporting a number of products to the UK, and this agreement could see sub-standard products from those nations end up on UK plates.

The UK Government claims it won’t undermine animal welfare, food or environmental standards as part of any trade agreements, but that has already been severely tested with the Australia deal. Our hard-won farming standards must not be further sacrificed in pursuit of joining the CPTPP. The terms of the UK’s accession must not undermine the UK’s network of extensive, pasture-based farmers nor drive down animal welfare.

Of the countries already in the CPTPP that the UK already has, or will shortly finalise, free trade agreements with:

• Australia (see Australian tab): the main exports facilitated by the FTA will be sheepmeat and beef) – the CPTPP agreement will not see any further lowering of tariffs from the UK-Aus FTA
• New Zealand (see New Zealand tab): standards in New Zealand are broadly similar to the UK – again, the main exports will be sheepmeat and beef.
• Japan (see Japan tab): has little export of agri-food goods to the UK)
• Singapore: permits gene-editing and these could now be permitted into the UK (depending on the final terms of the CPTPP agreement)
• Mexico (see Mexico tab): currently the UK’s trade relationship with Mexico is covered by a rollover of a trade agreement agreed between the EU and Mexico. Mexico is a high risk to UK animal welfare standards due to export interests in eggs, chicken, beef and pork. The majority of Mexican pigs are raised in intensive conditions and the use of sow stalls, which have been illegal in the UK since 1999, are permitted. Furthermore, ractopamine, a growth-promoter used in pigs that is banned in the UK is also allowed in Mexico.
• Canada (see Canada tab): is a high risk as the Canadian Government will have export interest in several sectors. Canada permits the use of hormones in farming and has previously expressed its objection to the UK’s ban on hormone-fed beef. It also has significant production of poultry, eggs and pigmeat.

The UK Government also has roll-over deals and/or is negotiating deals with these CPTPP member countries:

• Chile – which might see increased imports of chicken meat
• Peru – a large exporter of anchovies
• Vietnam – export interests in various seafood (catfish, tilapia and shrimp product) as well as live exports of fowls. Vietnam could possibly a high-risk factor in terms of poultry and eggs but it is unclear whether the CPTPP will significantly increase trade flows of those goods into the UK.

The UK does not currently have an FTA with the following CPTPP nations:

• Brunei - no agri-food exports to UK, minimal risk
• Malaysia - Currently there are no national standards for cage-free or free-range eggs and poultry. There is a certification system called MyGAP (Malaysian Good Agricultural Practice). The MyGAP certification does not have technical guidelines on matters such as size of cage, enrichment, freedom to engage in natural behaviour, and is more to do with efficiency, productivity, and biosecurity. Medium risk as Malaysia could start to export poultry to the UK, under CPTPP. See also ‘deforestation’ further down this section.

Sectors and areas of concern

• Beef: the CPTPP agreement requires SPS measures to be based on science – this would ordinarily prevent any ban on hormone-fed beef or chlorine washed chicken, which the UK and EU have banned by following the precautionary principle (an approach Compassion supports). However, the Agreement in Principle that the UK has negotiated suggests all imports “will continue to comply with our import requirements” This implies that our SPS import controls will not change and so beef-hormone (and ractopamine-pork and chlorine chicken) will not be imported. However, Canada has previously stated its objection to the ban on hormone-beef and this will be further tested in any bilateral trade negotiations between the UK and Canada, which are ongoing.
• Pigmeat: quotas will gradually be increased over a 10 year period to a maximum level of 55,000 tonnes per year. Canada is a major exporter of pigmeat products and this deal could therefore impact trade in these goods – and would be further impacted by any UK-Canada negotiations. As with beef, ractopamine pork will not be permitted into the UK through this agreement. However, pork produced in sow stalls and this poses a serious risk to undermining the UK’s current animal welfare standards.
• Sheepmeat: duties are immediately removed on these products. However, the major exporters of lamb in the CPTPP are Australia and New Zealand – both these nations are covered by existing FTAs and this is therefore unlikely to further increase trade in these goods (see above for concerns regarding the UK-Aus deal in respect to sheep farming in Australia).
• Eggs: after 10 years of the UK’s accession to the CPTPP there will be no limit on egg imports (other than Australia, where the UK-Australia FTA does not change the MFN tariff rate and that remains). Canada and Mexico, both use the conventional battery cage, could undermine the UK’s standards in this area. There is no conditionality or cap on the trade in these products, posing significant risk to the sector.
• Poultry: imports will, under the current terms, increase over a period of 10 years to a maximum 10,000 tonnes per year. Again, chicken produced in Canada and Mexico seem likely to be the main origin of imports with trade allowed on chicken produced under stocking densities that are prohibited in the UK. Chlorine washed chicken imports will continue to be prohibited.
• Deforestation: the agreement in principle states that, “for palm oil, duties will be eliminated at entry into force for all CPTPP Parties.” This means the removal of trade measures designed to protect rainforests being immediately scrapped upon accession. As Compassion has flagged before , palm oil production involves the clearing of rainforests to create palm oil plantations. This has horrendous impacts on biodiversity – including some of the world’s most at risk species - to produce feed for animals confined in factory farms across the world.

After many years of negotiation, the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement was struck and ratified in December 2020.

EU and UK legislation on animal welfare is, largely, identical. However, the trade deal that has been negotiated was still something of a mixed bag for farm animals.

On the positive side:

• The deal does not prevent the UK from implementing a ban on the live export of animals for slaughter or fattening, and we we were delighted to see this cruel trade ended, once and for all, last year.
• The agreement ensures tariff-free, quota-free trade in all farm products and many processed products. This means the level of farm imports originating from the EU can be maintained, and hopefully avoids an increase in the import of given that animal products from third countries (most often produced to lower animal welfare standards).
• The UK is now able to replace the Common Agricultural Policy with its own system of farm subsidies, recognising the need to use public money to support public goods. This includes making it possible for the UK Government to divert resources to support higher animal welfare standards.
• The UK-EU deal also specifically references areas where the Parties will work together on farm animal welfare, particularly related to the "breeding, holding, handling, transportation and slaughter of food-producing animals."
• The deal recognises animals as sentient beings.
• There is also a section recognising that the misuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture is a threat to human and animal health.

On the negative side:

Disappointingly, however, the UK-EU agreement does not list animal welfare in its chapter on a 'Level Playing Field', and provisions on animal welfare cooperation do not include a commitment to non-regression.

Whilst in some FTAs the inclusion of a level playing field may be of concern (such as in an FTA with the USA), a commitment to this in the agreement with the EU could have prevented any backsliding in UK animal welfare standards. This is because much of the UK's animal welfare law is derived from EU law, and both have similar, comparatively high standards.

Conversely, the lack of such a commitment means the UK could set animal welfare standards lower than those of the EU, or vice versa. And neither Party will be able to use tariffs to claim back any cost disadvantages from lower animal welfare standards, should these standards diverge and impact trade.

Additionally, whilst the absence of tariffs could ensure that most exports of animal products from the UK  will not drop abruptly, additional checks, paperwork, and bureaucracy ('non-tariff barriers') do now apply for any animals or food products leaving Great Britain for the EU.

Moreover, as with other trade deals, the UK Government has secured to date, the EU deal fails to give the UK the right to refuse the import of meat, eggs, and dairy produced to lower animal welfare standards. This is a missed opportunity because, for example, the UK could have insisted that imported pork must come from herds that do not use sow stalls (which have been prohibited in the as is required of UK since 1999).

In May 2025, the UK Government announced that it had signed a free trade agreement with India. The full details of this are yet to be published but a summary conclusion of the FTA suggests that the UK Government has taken steps to protect animal welfare in these negotiations. In particular:

• UK farmed animal welfare will be protected because there will be no tariff reductions by the UK Government on pork, eggs or chicken. And both parties will maintain their tariffs on dairy products.
• The SPS chapter has language on animal welfare, including links between farm animal health and welfare.
• The UK and India have agreed to cooperate on improving animal welfare standards.

The deal does see import tariffs reduced by India on lamb exports from the UK, and by the UK Government for tariffs on seafood exports from India.

The first new post-Brexit deal the UK negotiated was the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan.²

Although this was largely a rollover of an existing EU-Japan deal, the UK Government did seek to make changes in certain areas. Frustratingly, however, the agreement did not match up to the Government's rhetoric on protecting animal welfare standards:

• The language contained within the FTA relating to animal welfare is short and meaningless.
• There does not appear to be anything within the agreement which permits the UK to reject the import of products that are not produced to UK standards.
• Some elements of the agreement could also have a chilling effect in respect of the UK adopting stronger animal welfare regulations in the future. For example, the "exchange of information on planned or existing regulatory measures" would require the UK Government to notify Japan of any changes to domestic legislation. This could be seen as onerous – leading UK Ministers to determine it is more straightforward to simply not make changes to legislation in the first place.

For more information, read a comprehensive briefing on the UK-Japan FTA, sent by Compassion to members of both Houses of Parliament.

Compassion has a number of concerns around the standards of farming, and of farmed animal welfare, in Mexico. We urge the UK Government to ensure that such products are not permitted into the UK under any future UK-Mexico FTA – and especially not to be granted tariff or quota-free access – nor as a result of the UK’s accession to the CPTPP.

The World Animal Protection Animal Protection Index gives Mexico a ranking of ‘D’ for farm animal welfare, and a ‘C’ for animal welfare more generally (where ‘A’ is the highest ranking). It finds that there is no species-specific legislation for pigs, egg laying hens, broiler (meat) chickens, dairy cattle or calves.⁷

The updated EU-Mexico FTA includes a chapter on animal welfare which prescribes cooperative measures to improve the implementation of the OIE standards while also allowing each Party to establish the level of protection they determine to be appropriate. The UK should ensure that there is an animal welfare chapter in its own Mexico deal – however, this should aim to go beyond OIE standards as these are not enforced and are significantly lower than those the UK already has in place. The agreement also covers antimicrobial resistance (AMR) – both of which are welcome as potentially this sends a strong statement to the world that animal welfare matters and is critical to protect Europe’s values and Europeans’ health. Any trade agreement struck by the UK should have an animal welfare and AMR chapter, and the wording of the chapter and the actions of the government must result in meaningful progress for animal welfare, not simply be empty rhetoric. The UK should ensure that it does not allow the import of products from animals produced with excessive levels of antibiotics.

The EU-Mexico agreement also recognises animals as sentient beings, something the UK should insist on in its own deal since UK law once again recognises animal sentience.

However, the basic principle is not reflected in Mexican federal law (although most states have legislation containing some partial or implied recognition of sentience).

Mexico has a large scale, intensive agriculture sector, which has grown in recent decades. A report by Eurogroup for Animals finds that, “As the world’s fourth producer of eggs (all of them caged), seventh of poultry meat, sixth of beef, and fifteenth of pork, Mexico is a key country for cruelly produced animal products. It has the second largest number of livestock among Latin American countries, behind Brazil, accounting for more than 600 million farm animals.” And that, “In 2016, the FAO estimated the country counted around 550 million chickens, 34 million heads of cattle and 17 million pigs.”⁸

Imports of products from such farms would be likely to increase through the any trade agreement the UK seeks to secure with Mexico, or through the CPTPP, as a result of any liberalisation in the trade in agri-food goods, or the removal of non-tariff barriers to trade. Such imports to the UK could undermine the network of pasture-based, higher welfare farming that the UK prides itself on, and potentially create downward pressure on British standards. Some of the sub-standard practices permitted in Mexico that should be red lines for the UK Government are as follows:

• Egg products: one of the industries in the UK that will be particularly at risk, through any removal of tariffs or quotas, will be the egg sector. These issues will likely be related to the import of liquid eggs/egg powder from Mexico (shell eggs are unlikely to be imported for reasons of freshness). These imports will be from low welfare systems, quite possibly battery cages (which are banned in the UK, and throughout the EU, since 2012 but are still permitted in Mexico). The imports of these products should not be permitted through either a UK-Mexico FTA or the UK's accession to the CPTPP and should always be treated as a red line by British negotiators.
• Pork products: ractopamine, a growth-promoter used in pigs, is banned in the UK but allowed in Mexico. Pork from pigs reared using such products should not be permitted into the UK under any circumstances. Additionally, the majority of Mexican pigs are raised on intensive animal farming operations, including sow stalls. Sow stalls have been banned in the UK since 1999, and the time in which sows (mother pigs) can spend in such systems restricted across the EU since 2013.
• Cattle/beef: Hormone use is permitted in cattle in Mexico, as it is in the USA and Canada.⁹ The UK must maintain its ban on the importation of such products in the face of pressure from Mexican negotiators to allow access for such goods. (nb. concern about these growth promoters is additional to the issue of ractopamine use in pig farming).
• Environmental: Mexico has the lowest environmental standards in North America with respect to industrialised farm animal production. There are particular concerns about water and air pollution. If the UK is serious about protecting environmental standard, through its trade policy, it must ensure that environmentally damaging products are not given access to the UK market.

As noted above, Mexico has an intensive agriculture sector, and is amongst the top 10 producers (by number, not quality) for a range of species - many of which are reared in poor welfare conditions. We would hope that neither a UK-Mexico FTA nor the CPTPP deal allow unfettered access to these products.

Preferential access to Mexican products will open up the UK market to lower welfare imports and potentially lead to a race to the bottom in terms of scale of production (increasing the amount of intensive farming) and could result in domestic pressure to lower our own standards. The UK should look to the draft EU-Mercosur agreement, which had conditional liberalisation for egg imports from the Mercosur nations (i.e. only eggs produced above a certain standard will qualify for quota- or tariff-free access). Similar such conditional liberalisation should be applied to other agri-food goods that trading partners want to export to the UK.

In February 2022, the UK and New Zealand signed a free trade agreement. This deal will allow beef, sheepmeat and dairy products from New Zealand to become tariff-free (over 10-15 years for beef and sheepmeat and six years for dairy, along the same lines as the Australian deal).

Other food products, in particular eggs, pork and poultry, will also become tariff-free – but immediately on the deal entering into force, with no phase-in period.

However, the New Zealand deal raises less of a concern from an animal welfare perspective, as the standards in both countries are broadly comparable. For example, as of 1st January 2023, New Zealand has meant banned battery cages for laying hens⁵.

The most concerning thing about this agreement is that there is no conditional liberation in the deal (i.e. allowing tariff-free access only to those products that definitely do meet UK standards). This seems a missed opportunity – if the UK can’t (or, more likely, isn’t willing to try to) secure that in a deal with NZ then it certainly won’t secure such conditions with anyone else it is seeking trade deals with (given all the other trade agreement the UK is prioritising are with nations that all have lower standards than either the UK or New Zealand). The UK Government’s Impact Assessment for the deal suggests the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector will take a £48 million hit and the semi-processed foods sector around £97 million as a result of the deal.¹⁰

On a more positive note, the deal contains wording around non-derogation and non-regression from respective levels to avoid either nation trying to undercut the other party – given New Zealand’s higher standards, when compared to the rest of the world, this should be more meaningful than the similar language in the Australia deal (which carries little weight, given Australia’s poor standards). Although, as the animal welfare chapter is not subject to a dispute settlement mechanism it is unclear how the non-regression provisions will work (and how each party will assess welfare). Encouragingly, the deal also recognises the right of each party to legislate / introduce new policies in the area of animal welfare in order to try and improve animal welfare standards domestically.

On the issue of food safety, the deal permits the recognition of each other’s SPS measures. This will ensure that the UK can continue to use the precautionary principle when assessing food safety, which is how it maintains bans on hormone treated beef and chlorinated chicken (whereas the Australian deal only talks of a science-based approach, which would permit both of the above, if successfully challenged). The New Zealand deal also has wording around reducing antibiotic use on farms, which is to be welcomed.

Although the deal signed between the UK and New Zealand is of less concern than that signed between Australia and the UK, it is a further step in the Government signing deals with countries that will export significant agricultural products to the UK - including, in this instance, a 2,400% increase in beef imports. While New Zealand’s animal welfare standards are broadly comparable with current British standards, Compassion remains concerned that the headlong rush to increase meat imports, when combined with the UK-Australia FTA, could come at the expense of Britain’s higher welfare, pasture-based farmers.

For further information on this deal, you can read Compassion’s submission to the International Trade Select Committee inquiry into this trade agreement. 

In May 2025, the UK agreed an economic deal with the USA covering specific areas. For farmed animals, the UK and US have agreed new reciprocal market access on beef – with UK farmers given a tariff free quota for 13,000 metric tonnes. The UK Government insist that ‘there will be no weakening of UK food standards on imports'¹¹.

This should mean that no hormone beef OR chlorine washed chicken will be permitted to enter the UK. It seems it is only tariffs for beef removed – and imports of beef will need to be hormone free. All other agri-food products (including chicken) remain unaltered.

However, the UK and US both want to go further in this area, and the possibility of a trade deal with the USA gives rise to a number of concerns regarding animal welfare standards.

Beef

Concerns about the import of hormone-treated beef have been widely publicised in the UK. However, the problems with US beef are not limited to the use of growth-promoting hormones. US cattle are usually kept in feedlots for the last few months of their lives. Feedlots confine thousands of cattle in crowded, often dirty conditions. If imports of beef from US feedlots are permitted, they will undercut UK pasture-based beef farmers on price.

Pork

Ractopamine is a beta-agonist feed additive used to promote growth in pigs. Its use is permitted in the US but prohibited in the UK, and there is evidence that it has a detrimental impact on the behaviour and welfare¹² of pigs.

Pork imported from the US is also likely to come from herds where sows are confined in narrow stalls during pregnancy. The use of sow stalls has been illegal in the UK since 1999, due to concerns about animal welfare.

Dairy products

BST (bovine somatotropin) is a genetically engineered lactation-promoting hormone that is injected into cows in the US to increase milk yields.

The use of BST is prohibited in the UK on animal welfare grounds. Imported US dairy products from BST-treated cows would undercut UK farmers on price.

Chicken meat and egg products

The import to the UK of chicken washed in chlorine or other chemical disinfectants has rightly caused concern, as such treatments are used to mask unhygienic conditions in production, slaughter, and processing. These conditions are often associated with low welfare, highly intensive chicken farming.

Additionally, whilst the use of barren battery cages for hens is banned in the UK, they are used in most US states. Although fresh eggs are unlikely to be imported from the USA, in the UK 21% of eggs are used as product ingredients, often in the form of whole egg powder. At present, US egg powder imports are discouraged by high tariffs, but the US is likely to oppose the inclusion of such tariffs in any trade agreement. This may well result in egg powder coming into the UK from hens kept in barren cages in the USA, undermining domestic farmers.

Antibiotics

Antibiotics are given to farm animals at much higher levels in the USA than in the UK. In terms of mg of the active ingredient of antibiotic per tonne of livestock unit (PCU)¹³:

• Total antibiotic use in US farm animals is more than five times higher than in UK farm animals.
• Antibiotic use in US cattle is about 8-9 times that in UK cattle.
• US antibiotic use in both pigs and chickens is more than double that in UK animals.
• Antibiotic use in US turkeys is about nine times higher than that in the UK.

Regulatory coherence

In any trade agreement with the UK, the US is likely to press for the inclusion of a clause intended to align regulatory standards on the farming, transport, and slaughter of animals. This would be worrying, as US regulations on farm animal welfare are generally substantially lower than those in the UK.

Indeed, the US has no federal regulations at all in many areas. There is no federal legislation governing the welfare of animals while they are on a farm. And, although there are provisions on slaughter, these do not cover poultry and are much less detailed than UK legislation. Similarly, regulations on transport are much less detailed and demanding than UK legislation.

Meanwhile, whilst the UK has banned barren battery cages for hens, sow stalls, and veal crates, there is no US federal ban on these systems – although 12 states have prohibited one or all of these systems.

In the light of all these threats, Compassion believes it is vital for any FTA with the US to prevent imports of food that has not been produced to UK animal welfare standards.

Read our full briefing on the threats posed by a UK-US Free Trade Agreement.

Trade talks with Canada were paused in 2024, due to the UK refusing to allow the import of hormone-fed beef.

Compassion has a number of concerns regarding the potential liberalisation in the trade in agri-food products from Canada, and the implications for the UK’s ability to protect farm animal welfare standards.

First, it should be noted that Canada in general has no federal farm animal welfare laws (although individual farms could operate to higher standards). The World Animal Protection Animal Protection Index gives Canada a ‘D’ ranking for farm animal welfare, and overall (where ‘A’ is the highest). They state that “There is no federal legislation that addresses the welfare of animals on the farm. The National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) produces Codes of Practice for the care and handling of farm animals, which detail non-regulatory requirements and recommendations for good animal care on farms.”

Similarly, hormone-use is permitted in cattle in Canada (as it is in the USA and Mexico). The UK must maintain its ban on the importation of such products in the face of pressure from Canadian negotiators to allow access for such goods.

The likely targeting on non-tariff barriers to trade, through the limiting of regulations, is also likely to be a risk to UK animal welfare. Rules that Compassion supports but that might be under threat include, restrictions on the use of GMO (Canadian farming is more heavily dependent on both chemical additives and GMOs than UK farming ), cloning and labelling.

In terms of labelling, Compassion supports mandatory method of production labelling, and any future UK Government policy on this issue must not be circumscribed by a trade deal with Canada or accession to the CPTPP.

Canada's regulatory standards on farm animal welfare are substantially lower than those of the UK. There is no Canadian federal legislation on animal welfare besides basic anti-cruelty provisions, and few public health rules concerning animals. The strength of animal welfare law at the provincial level also varies greatly. The divergent regulatory approaches of the UK and Canada to animal welfare will mean that any FTA with Canada make it difficult for the UK to adopt good new animal welfare legislation and could place downward pressure on existing measures.

Canada uses significantly larger quantities of antibiotics in its agricultural production – with associated threats to both animal and human health. A 2020 report by the Alliance to Save our Antibiotics found that overall farm antibiotic use per animal is about five times higher in Canada than in the UK.¹ Products produced using such high quantities of antibiotics should not be permitted access into the UK under any future trade agreement.